Svensmark's theory explains arctic - antarctic ice coverage dichotomy
in [Physics]
|
Prev: The ludicrous theories of official Geology ( Gogology in fact i.e. the science of Gogos) in the light of the findings of the True Geology
Next: Most meteorites contain fossil bone remains
From: Mike Jr on 25 Mar 2010 23:15 Bottom right of page 1.20: "Cloud tops have a high albedo and exert their cooling effect by scattering back into the cosmos much of the sunlight that could otherwise warm the surface. But the snows on the Antarctic ice sheets are dazzlingly white, with a higher albedo than the cloud tops. There, extra cloud cover warms the surface, and less cloudiness cools it. Satellite measurements show the warming effect of clouds on Antarctica, and meteorologists at far southern latitudes confirm it by observation. Greenland too has an ice sheet, but it is smaller and not so white. And while conditions in Greenland are coupled to the general climate of the northern hemisphere, Antarctica is largely isolated by vortices in the ocean and the air. The cosmic-ray and cloud-forcing hypothesis therefore predicts that temperature changes in Antarctica should be opposite in sign to changes in temperature in the rest of the world. This is exactly what is observed, in a well-known phenomenon that some geophysicists have called the polar see-saw, but for which the Antarctic climate anomaly seems a better name (Svensmark 2007). To account for evidence spanning many thousands of years from drilling sites in Antarctica and Greenland, which show many episodes of climate change going in opposite directions, ad hoc hypotheses on offer involve major reorganization of ocean currents. While they might be possible explanations for low-resolution climate records, with error-bars of centuries, they cannot begin to explain the rapid operation of the Antarctic climate anomaly from decade to decade as seen in the 20th century (figure 6). Cloud forcing is by far the most economical explanation of the anomaly on all timescales. Indeed, absence of the anomaly would have been a decisive argument against cloud forcing which introduces a much-needed element of refutability into climate science. http://www.phys.uu.nl/~nvdelden/Svensmark.pdf --Mike Jr.
From: Sam Wormley on 26 Mar 2010 00:41 On 3/25/10 10:15 PM, Mike Jr wrote: > Bottom right of page 1.20: > > "Cloud tops have a high albedo and exert their cooling effect by > scattering back into the cosmos much of the sunlight that could > otherwise warm the surface. But the snows on the Antarctic ice sheets > are dazzlingly white, with a higher albedo than the cloud tops. There, > extra cloud cover warms the surface, and less cloudiness cools it. > Satellite measurements show the warming effect of clouds on > Antarctica, and meteorologists at far southern latitudes confirm it by > observation. Greenland too has an ice sheet, but it is smaller and not > so white. And while conditions in Greenland are coupled to the general > climate of the northern hemisphere, Antarctica is largely > isolated by vortices in the ocean and the air. > > The cosmic-ray and cloud-forcing hypothesis therefore predicts that > temperature changes in Antarctica should be opposite in sign to > changes in temperature in the rest of the world. This is exactly what > is observed, in a well-known phenomenon that some geophysicists have > called the polar see-saw, but for which �the Antarctic climate > anomaly� seems a better name (Svensmark 2007). To account for evidence > spanning many thousands of years from drilling sites in Antarctica and > Greenland, which show many episodes of climate change going in > opposite directions, ad hoc hypotheses on offer involve major > reorganization of ocean currents. While they might > be possible explanations for low-resolution climate records, with > error-bars of centuries, they cannot begin to explain the rapid > operation of the Antarctic climate anomaly from decade to decade as > seen in the 20th century (figure 6). Cloud forcing is by far the most > economical explanation of the anomaly on all timescales. Indeed, > absence of the anomaly would have been a decisive argument against > cloud forcing � which introduces a much-needed element of refutability > into climate science. > > http://www.phys.uu.nl/~nvdelden/Svensmark.pdf > > --Mike Jr. Ida know, Mike-- 2009 was the second-warmest year on record, and by far the warmest in the southern hemisphere, despite the record solar minimum. Solar signals for the past 25 years is not just small but negative (cooling), but this has not noticeably slowed down global warming. Moreover, there are many unknowns remaining, and the largest uncertainties concern clouds, cloud physics, and their impact on climate. It is ironic that some people still rely on the cosmic rays argument as their strongest argument against AGW � it does involve poorly known clouds physics!
From: leonard78sp on 27 Mar 2010 11:42
On Mar 26, 12:41 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 3/25/10 10:15 PM, Mike Jr wrote: > > > > > Bottom right of page 1.20: > > > "Cloud tops have a high albedo and exert their cooling effect by > > scattering back into the cosmos much of the sunlight that could > > otherwise warm the surface. But the snows on the Antarctic ice sheets > > are dazzlingly white, with a higher albedo than the cloud tops. There, > > extra cloud cover warms the surface, and less cloudiness cools it. > > Satellite measurements show the warming effect of clouds on > > Antarctica, and meteorologists at far southern latitudes confirm it by > > observation. Greenland too has an ice sheet, but it is smaller and not > > so white. And while conditions in Greenland are coupled to the general > > climate of the northern hemisphere, Antarctica is largely > > isolated by vortices in the ocean and the air. > > > The cosmic-ray and cloud-forcing hypothesis therefore predicts that > > temperature changes in Antarctica should be opposite in sign to > > changes in temperature in the rest of the world. This is exactly what > > is observed, in a well-known phenomenon that some geophysicists have > > called the polar see-saw, but for which âthe Antarctic climate > > anomalyâ seems a better name (Svensmark 2007). To account for evidence > > spanning many thousands of years from drilling sites in Antarctica and > > Greenland, which show many episodes of climate change going in > > opposite directions, ad hoc hypotheses on offer involve major > > reorganization of ocean currents. While they might > > be possible explanations for low-resolution climate records, with > > error-bars of centuries, they cannot begin to explain the rapid > > operation of the Antarctic climate anomaly from decade to decade as > > seen in the 20th century (figure 6). Cloud forcing is by far the most > > economical explanation of the anomaly on all timescales. Indeed, > > absence of the anomaly would have been a decisive argument against > > cloud forcing â which introduces a much-needed element of refutability > > into climate science. > > >http://www.phys.uu.nl/~nvdelden/Svensmark.pdf > > > --Mike Jr. > >   Ida know, Mike-- 2009 was the second-warmest year on record, and >   by far the warmest in the southern hemisphere, despite the record >   solar minimum. Solar signals for the past 25 years is not just >   small but negative (cooling), but this has not noticeably slowed >   down global warming. > >   Moreover, there are many unknowns remaining, and the largest >   uncertainties concern clouds, cloud physics, and their impact on >   climate. It is ironic that some people still rely on the cosmic >   rays argument as their strongest argument against AGW â it does >   involve poorly known clouds physics! ø The Worm doesn't know much at all. '09 was not extremely warm except in the computers of GISS/NASA and Hadley/CRU. ø It says that no matter how it is cooling, the globe is warming. How silly can it get? ø The 10,000 year interglacial period ended 3,000 years ago, and we have been on a cooling trend, ever since. Sure, nothing in nature runs in a straight line, but reglaciation is due and will begin sometime in this century, AGW notwithstanding. ø Nobody can control the wind Nobody can control the rain or snow Nobody (collectively) can control climate. Global temps are within natural variations Oceans heating are a prelude to glaciation ⨠Get used to it!! â â | In real science the burden of proof is always | on the proposer, never on the skeptics. So far | neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one | iota of valid data for global warming nor have | they provided data that climate change is being | effected by commerce and industry, and not by | natural causes |